Three Words Progressives Can Use to Win
Elections

Let America be America again.br />
Let it be the dream it used to be.
Let it be the pioneer on the plain
Seeking a home where he himself is free.

In this poem, Langston Hughes famously evokes the spirit of the American
dream. It is our soaring common vision -- a portrait of an America without
tyranny, without injustice.

Let America be the dream the dreamers dreamed --
Let it be that great strong land of love
Where never kings connive nor tyrants scheme
That any man be crushed by one above.

The American dream is not about a society where government secures the
greatest good for the greatest number. Our dream is personal. It's about a
poor child delivering newspapers and one day ending up as the publisher.
It's about an unskilled worker attending night school and becoming a
successful manager. It's about individuals and families practicing their
religion without interference, getting ahead through hard work, and being
able to retire in security and comfort. The American dream is a prayer, a
vision, a fervent hope that every individual may be given a fair
chance to build a successful life.

The progressive-liberal-Democratic base of voters would gladly accept a
communitarian philosophy. I, too, wish that American culture were more
oriented toward altruism and community. But it isn't. A realistic
progressive philosophy is one that accepts our national culture of
individualism and -- nevertheless -- seeks to make the American dream
accessible to all. How can we envision such a philosophy?

Balance Is Justice

Imagine a balance scale -- the old-fashioned kind with two pans, one
suspended from each end of a bar. It's the kind of scale that symbolizes
equal justice under law. In a progressive world, the role of government is
to help balance the scale when powerful individuals or organizations compete
against weaker ones. Government should function as a counterweight on the
scale of justice. The greater the disparity of power between competing
interests, the greater weight the government must provide to the weaker
side.

It is not government's job to ensure that everyone wins every competition
-- that would be a logical impossibility. Instead, government must ensure
that, whenever possible, competition is both fair and humane. In other
words, justice is the purpose of government, and in an individualistic
society, balance is the means of achieving justice.

A system in balance rewards hard work, efficiency, and innovation --
which benefit all of society, and discourages crime, corruption, and schemes
to game the system -- which rob all of society. But isn't balance an awfully
broad principle? How do we apply it? Let's break down public policy into
three situations, where: (1) government has no proper role; (2) government
acts as a referee; and (3) government acts as a protector.

Freedom

Where government has no proper role, because public action would violate
individual rights, progressive policy should be based on freedom. By
freedom, I mean the absence of legal interference with our fundamental
rights -- freedom of speech, religion, and association; the right to
privacy; the rights of the accused; and the right of all citizens to vote.
Compared to an individual, government wields tremendous power, so a
progressive policy adds great weight -- in the form of strong legal rights
-- to the individual's side of the scale.

Freedom is the cornerstone of America's value system. For two centuries,
America has been defined by its commitment to freedom. One poll found that
Americans believe -- by a margin of 73 to 15 percent -- that freedom
is more important than equality. But because it's so popular,
freedom is the most misused of all political terms.

Neoconservatives have incessantly proclaimed to Americans that both the
war in Iraq and the "war on terror" are in defense of our freedom. Don't
believe it. Our freedom is not in jeopardy -- neither the Iraqis nor
al-Qaeda are attempting to invade America and control our government. U.S.
military and police actions might be said to protect our security, but not
our freedom. So don't use the word freedom when discussing terrorism
or Iraq -- it just provides a false justification for war.

Similarly, conservatives equate freedom with capitalism. Don't believe
it. Our nation's market economy is not free from government control --
actually, it is dominated by government. Markets are based on a dense web of
laws enforced by multiple layers of federal, state, and local agencies.
Businesses are not free to sell diseased meat, make insider stock trades,
pollute our air and water, or discriminate on the basis of race, gender, or
ethnicity. So don't be fooled by the terms free market, free enterprise,
or free trade, because they all support right-wing policies.

Most astonishing, I think, is the way religious extremists use the word
freedom to mean the very opposite. They argue that freedom gives them
the right to use the power of government to impose their religious views on
the rest of us. When they pressure school boards to mandate the teaching of
intelligent design in schools, when they erect monuments to the Ten
Commandments in courthouses, when they work to ban all abortions, when they
seek to promote prayer in public schools, right-wingers assert it's an
exercise in religious freedom. Please, don't believe it. Freedom is the
absence of government intervention.

When defined too broadly, freedom becomes an empty platitude that can be
wielded as a bludgeon to pummel any side of any political argument. My
freedom to operate a monopoly tramples on your freedom to buy cheaper
products. My freedom to drive an unsafe vehicle tramples on your freedom to
travel the same roads in safety. My freedom to smoke in a bar tramples on
your freedom to breathe clean air. "Freedom to ..." and "freedom from ..."
gets us nowhere.

Besides, progressives have had plenty of opportunities in the past few
years to rally for freedom solely in defense of individual rights. To name
just a few:

When the National Security Agency conducts warrantless eavesdropping
on the phone calls and e-mails of innocent Americans, it's a violation
of our freedom.

When the FBI's TALON database shows that the government has been
spying on peaceful domestic groups, including Quakers, the Campus
Antiwar Network, and Veterans for Peace, it's a violation of our
freedom.

When the federal government arrests an American citizen, Jose
Padilla, on American soil and holds him for years without the most basic
rights afforded the accused, keeping him in almost complete isolation
and preventing him even from talking to a lawyer during his first
twenty-one months in a military prison, it's a violation of our freedom.

When, just forty-five days after the September 11 attacks, with
almost no debate, Congress approves the USA Patriot Act, broadly
increasing government power to search medical, tax, and even library
records without probable cause, and to break into homes to conduct
secret searches, it's a violation of our freedom.

After years of warrantless wiretapping, illegal imprisonments, and
torture, we should all be saying the F-word with regularity. No, no, I mean
freedom. Why do progressives seem allergic to this word?

Opportunity

Where government acts as a referee between private, unequal interests,
progressive policy should be based on opportunity. By opportunity, I
mean a level playing field in social and economic affairs -- fair dealings
between the powerful and the less powerful, the elimination of
discrimination, and a quality education for all. Competing interests usually
hold unequal power, so progressive policy adds weight -- guarantees of
specific protections -- to the weaker interest. For example, unskilled
low-wage workers have no leverage to bargain for higher pay. That's why it
is up to the government to impose a reasonable minimum wage. Quite simply,
when social and market forces do not naturally promote equal opportunity,
government must step in.

Opportunity means, more than anything, a fair marketplace. Although
progressives tend to stress the rights of consumers and employees against
businesses, opportunity also means fairness between businesses -- especially
helping small enterprises against large ones -- and fairness for
stockholders against corporate officers. Individual ambition, innovation,
and effort -- harnessed by the market system -- are supposed to benefit
society as a whole. But that can happen only when the competition is fair.

The concept of opportunity is an easy sell to progressives. Hubert
Humphrey said, "The struggle for equal opportunity in America is the
struggle for America's soul." Amen to that.

And yet, since the Reagan years, we've been losing that struggle:

Wage inequality has grown. From 1979 to 2003, income for those in
the bottom tenth of wage earners increased less than 1 percent, and
millions actually earn less today than they did then, adjusting for
inflation. During that same period, salaries for Americans in the top
tenth increased 27 percent.

The richest have gained the most. Between 1996 and 2001, the richest
1 percent of Americans received 21.6 percent of all the gains in
national income. CEO pay, especially, has skyrocketed. Today, the
richest 10 percent of Americans own 71 percent of all the wealth -- the
top 1 percent own 33 percent of all assets.

Poverty has increased. Although the number of Americans living in
poverty steadily declined from 1993 to 2000, at least five million have
fallen below the poverty line since George W. Bush took office.

Educational inequality has worsened. Economic (and often racial)
segregation of schools has increased, with schools in poorer areas
having less money per student and paying less per teacher while dealing
with larger class sizes, crumbling facilities, and inadequate equipment.
Students who need more resources are given less.

Equal opportunity has taken it on the chin. The gauzy mist of the
American dream is being blown away by a gust of savage reality. That's
because the right wing opposes opportunity.

Conservatives have fought against ending discrimination, even though
equal treatment is a precondition for equal opportunity. They don't even
pretend to support equal opportunity in commerce; instead, conservatives
lobby for government favors, no-bid contracts, and economic development
giveaways. And right-wingers seek to destroy anything that allows
individuals to stand up to larger economic forces, with labor unions,
consumer protections, and antimonopoly policies under constant attack.

Our mission is clear. It is to guarantee that all Americans are able to
realize their goals through education, hard work, and fair pay. We must
provide every person, not just the privileged few, with an equal opportunity
to pursue a better life -- equal access to the American dream.

Security

Where government acts to protect those who cannot reasonably protect
themselves, including future generations, progressive policy should be based
on security. By security, I mean protecting Americans from domestic
criminals and foreign terrorists, of course, but also insuring the sick and
the vulnerable, safeguarding the food we eat and products we use, and
preserving our environment.

There is always a threat that larger or unexpected forces will attack any
one of us, so progressive policy adds weight, in the form of government
institutions and programs, that helps protect us from harm. For example,
society has a responsibility to protect the elderly, the disabled, widows,
and orphans and that's why an aptly named federal program has functioned in
that role for more than a half-century -- Social Security.

Progressives support the concept of security, of course. But as I've
traveled around the country giving workshops to progressives, I notice that
we usually detour around the word. To ignore security is to lose the
argument.

And this is an argument we want to have. To quote the President, "Bring
it on." Since 2001, conservatives have devastated national and individual
security:

The Bush Administration's doctrine of preemptive war, its utter
contempt for our traditional allies, its violations of the Geneva
Conventions, and its refusal to comply with important treaties have
sacrificed America's moral standing in international affairs. As a
result, our nation is now far less able to protect Americans and
American interests worldwide.

The right-wing attack on Social Security is just one small facet of
a coordinated, cold-blooded plan to dismantle New Deal and Great Society
programs that protect our health, our safety, and our environment.

The profligate spending and massive tax breaks for the wealthy
enacted by a conservative-controlled Congress greatly restrict our
nation's ability to deal with threats to our security -- from emergency
preparedness to protection of the vulnerable in our communities.

In every important way, the right wing has made our country less secure.
So let's keep the upper hand in this debate. Whether we're talking about
Iraq or drug-related crime, progressives are for commonsense policies that
will make Americans safer.

The All-American Philosophy

Now that you think about it, don't the principles of freedom,
opportunity, and security sound kind of familiar?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

This famous line from the Declaration of Independence is more than a set
of high-sounding platitudes -- it is an assertion of American political
philosophy. And it's a progressive philosophy.

By "Life," Thomas Jefferson did not mean simply the right to survival,
which would suggest that being beaten almost to death is OK. He meant
a right to personal security. By "Liberty," Jefferson was referring
to the kinds of freedoms that were ultimately written into federal
and state Bills of Rights, blocking the government from infringing upon
speech, religion, the press, and trial by jury, as well as protecting
individuals from wrongful criminal prosecutions. And how do we translate
Jefferson's "pursuit of Happiness"? It cannot mean that everyone has the
God-given right to do whatever makes them happy. Read "happiness" together
with the earlier part of the same sentence, "all men are created equal."
Jefferson is not saying that people have an unbridled right to pursue
happiness; he is saying they have an equal right to pursue happiness.
In today's language, we'd call that equal opportunity.

We progressives haven't forgotten the principles that inspired our
nation. But we have misplaced them. And worse, we've allowed right-wing
extremists to hijack our ideals and wave them like a flag, rallying
Americans to their distinctly un-American cause.

It is time to right that wrong. Let's fit our progressive policies with a
classic (and popular!) philosophical frame: freedom, opportunity, and
security for all.